How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?

[aetherist]

Unless you'd like to show us how to create radio emissions and/or "electricity" from nothing but crystalline structures (say, quartz) with "fixed" positive and negative charges without applying any heat, mechanical shock, acoustic waves, photons, or mechanical stress, and without waiting for their atoms to decay. Good luck 

I accept your challenge. My answer will take me about 1 second of thinking, & a few minutes of typing. It goes like this.
In a crystal atom elektrons (photons) orbit (hug) the nucleus, ie elekticity orbits the nucleus, ie a shock etc can dislodge an elektron, & the resulting elekton can then propagate along (hug) a conductor (eg a Cu wire), in which case we have elekticity.

What is vague about my saying that elekticity on a wire is due to elektons propagating along (hugging) the surface of the Cu?
What is vague about my saying that an atom is elekticity orbiting a nucleus?

You said the opposite. To quote you earlier: "electricity aint due to the movement of electrons -- neither in the Cu nor on the Cu."

But, back to the main topic re radio not being photons.
I reckon that radio is due to em radiation. U say that radio is due to photons.
Photons have a natural frequency. Em radiation duznt have a natural frequency – in radio it has a forced frequency.
Em radiation is emitted by every photon, ie it is emitted by elektons propagating upndown a transmitting antenna.
The em radiation emitted by elektons will mimic the elektons movement upndown the antenna.
A 1MHz antenna emits a 1 MHz em radiation wave, not a 1MHz photon.

In the receiver the em radiation will excite the elektons already on the Cu -- & will create a mini-version of the elekton current on the transmitter.

EM radiation is made of photons in the same way that a cup of distilled water is made of H2O molecules. You've indicated the physics is over your head, so I'll cease bludgeoning you with it--provided you stop posting confident nonsense.

The water is the photons -- the water waves are the radio waves.

Re saying the opposite -- i am afraid that u have missread what i wrote -- read again (i think that u missread elekton for electron)(or did i make a spelling error?).

[aetherist]

Charge radiates all of the time. But, when a charge is at rest then the radiation is impotent.

Please explain what you mean by "impotent" -- this isn't a very descriptive term when applied to charged particles emitting radiation.

Fair question -- i have never used that description before today (ie the words impotent & potent).
What i meant is that a static charge has a limited action -- ie it produces a force or forces on another charge, but has no radio effect.
A moving charge likewise has no radio effect, ie no em effect (or at least no magnetic effect)(here i mean moving with constant velocity).
But an accelerating charge creates a changing em field (this complex changing field being slightly different to the simple changing field we get from a constant velocity).
And there are only 3 forces in nature -- electric (eg charge) -- magnetic (eg em) -- & gravity -- (& a 4th that i wont go into here)(i am not looking for abuse).

[aetherist]

Since time doesn't exist, neither does acceleration. So accelerated particles are just for the birds.

I agree with Einstein that time is an illusion (albeit his illusion is different to mine).
Time duznt exist.  What exists is ticking. Everything that we see & feel in our world/universe is a process, & all processes have a (natural) ticking.

[TimFox]

The fundamental reason is that charge radiates when it is accelerated.
In an antenna, the oscillating current accelerates the conducting charge along the wire.
In a synchrotron, charged particles are accelerated centripetally (by appropriated magnetic fields) to follow an approximately circular orbit.

NO. Charge duznt radiate when accelerated. Charge radiates all of the time. But, when a charge is at rest then the radiation is impotent. When charge is accelerated the radiation become potent, ie it can then have effect, ie it can then produce a force in some instances.

NO. In a transmitting antenna there is no conducting charge. In an antenna the oscillating electons going upndown the Cu have their own charge, an electon has a negative charge.

NO. Electons going upndown an antenna do not ever accelerate. They always propagate at the speed of light. They have one speed. The signal going upndown an antenna will have a say sinusoidal form, & this sinusoidal form is due to the numbers of electons flying in formation, it aint due to any acceleration of the electons.

In a synchrotron i suppose that electrons etc are made to follow a circular path at high speed (i say made, made to follow, by em radiation) – that sounds ok to me – here the electrons are electrons, they are not electons, & they are not free photons (they are photons that have formed a loop by biting their own tail).

Once again, you strike out:  0 for 3.
Your "electons" do not explain anything left unexplained by the standard theory.
Electrons, on the other hand, do travel up and down in conductive wires.  Otherwise, the current would not depend on the conductivity of the wire.
I have explained synchrotron radiation to  you in other posts, but you haven't bothered to consider it.
This is not a theoretical exercise:  electron synchrotrons are in use all over the world (including Australia).  In the simplest form, the electron beam is bent at stationary magnets into a polygonal path, close to a circle.  Bending a beam therein is an acceleration:  change in velocity over time.  At those stations, where the electrons are accelerated centripetally, EM radiation is produced.  This is all in vacuum.  To improve the output, there are interesting variations done to increase the distance over which the electrons suffer acceleration.  This, along with other forms of electron accelerators, is a practical method for producing EM radiation.
To learn about this important topic, you can go to the website of the main Australian synchrotron, which describes this in detail.  https://www.ansto.gov.au/facilities/australian-synchrotron
 
E

[aetherist]

2. U mention radio photons. I reckon that radio photons do not exist. I reckon that radio is due to em radiation (not photons), in particular radio is due to a changing em radiation, with a wavelength(s).
Hence if a silicon diode detector can detect radio waves then that detection is due to the action of em radiation not photons.

3. U mention thermal electrons. I reckon that electricity on a wire is due to photons (what i call electons) propagating along the surface of the Cu, not due to any movement of electrons in or on the Cu.
I reckon that electrons do not orbit the nucleus of an atom – electons orbit the nucleus. In other words an atom is electricity orbiting a nucleus.
However, i do believe that electrons exist – but these electrons are photons that have formed a loop by biting their own tails (or in some cases other tails).
In any case i don’t believe that there is any such thing as a thermal electron. But praps u mean an electron that has been created by a thermal photon (i might be ok with that).

Why do you reckon all these things? Have you spent the last 200 or 300 years doing careful scientific experiments, evaluating the results and carefully constructing mathematical equations that show how to predict the results of new experiments? Have you been alive the last 200 years to be able to do this?

Otherwise, it would seem you are simply talking through your hat.

That kind of stuff is over my head.

If that kind of stuff is over your head, why to you feel qualified to expound upon it?

Why do you reckon all these things? Have you spent the last 200 or 300 years doing careful scientific experiments, evaluating the results and carefully constructing mathematical equations that show how to predict the results of new experiments? Have you been alive the the last 200 years to be able to do this?

Otherwise, it would seem you are simply talking through your hat.

That kind of stuff is over my head.

If that kind of stuff is over your head, why to you feel qualified to expound upon it?[/quote]

I made a small number of simple statements –  why do u disagree with any of them. Each of them if true will stand any test. One strike & i am out. Now – u pitch -- & i will hit it out of the park every time.

[Sal Ammoniac]

What i meant is that a static charge has a limited action -- ie it produces a force or forces on another charge, but has no radio effect.

You're still using strange terms here--what is radio effect?

Are you implying that static charges emit photons? If so, since photons carry energy, how could that happen? Are electrons converting their rest mass into energy in the form of photons, and wouldn't that result in the decrease in the electron's rest mass? That can't happen in QM...

[aetherist]

What i meant is that a static charge has a limited action -- ie it produces a force or forces on another charge, but has no radio effect.

You're still using strange terms here--what is radio effect?

Are you implying that static charges emit photons? If so, since photons carry energy, how could that happen? Are electrons converting their rest mass into energy in the form of photons, and wouldn't that result in the decrease in the electron's rest mass? That can't happen in QM...

I am not familiar with Quantum stuff.
Static charge emits em radiation constantly & continuously & continually – em radiation is not photons (which is where i came in).
I have not invoked any electrons in any of my elekticity stuff or radio stuff here today -- hence i don’t see why electron rest mass  or electron energy affects anything here today.

[TimFox]

A static charge, such as an electrostatic charge on a stationary insulating ball in elementary electrostatics (from the era of Benjamin Franklin), induces a static, non-oscillating, non-propagating electric field in the surrounding vacuum.
This is not radiation, which oscillates and propagates.

[aetherist]

The fundamental reason is that charge radiates when it is accelerated.
In an antenna, the oscillating current accelerates the conducting charge along the wire.
In a synchrotron, charged particles are accelerated centripetally (by appropriated magnetic fields) to follow an approximately circular orbit.

NO. Charge duznt radiate when accelerated. Charge radiates all of the time. But, when a charge is at rest then the radiation is impotent. When charge is accelerated the radiation become potent, ie it can then have effect, ie it can then produce a force in some instances.

NO. In a transmitting antenna there is no conducting charge. In an antenna the oscillating elektons going upndown the Cu have their own charge, an elekton has a negative charge.

NO. Elekton going upndown an antenna do not ever accelerate. They always propagate at the speed of light. They have one speed. The signal going upndown an antenna will have a say sinusoidal form, & this sinusoidal form is due to the numbers of elektons flying in formation, it aint due to any acceleration of the elektons.

In a synchrotron i suppose that electrons etc are made to follow a circular path at high speed (i say made, made to follow, by em radiation) – that sounds ok to me – here the electrons are electrons, they are not elektons, & they are not free photons (they are photons that have formed a loop by biting their own tail).

Once again, you strike out:  0 for 3.
[PITCH 1 & 2]  Your "elektons" do not explain anything left unexplained by the standard theory.

[PITCH 1] My elektons explain why electricity propagates at the speed of light on the Cu.
[PITCH 2] And elektons explain whey insulation slows electricity to say 2c/3 km/s.

[PITCH 3]Electrons, on the other hand, do travel up and down in conductive wires.  Otherwise, the current would not depend on the conductivity of the wire.

[PITCH 3]  I am happy to agree with u that the current duz depend on the conductivity of the wire.  But i don’t agree with your "otherwise". NO. The reason for a certain elekton current in a wire is little different to the (supposed) reason for the (supposed) electron current in a wire. There will of course be differences – current on the surface of a wire must be different to (supposed) current in a wire. But u seem to be in love with "otherwise"—which shows that u don’t understand that there are an infinite number of explanations for electricity & conductivity.  "otherwise" indeed – SHHEEEEESSSSHHHHHH.

[PITCH 4]I have explained synchrotron radiation to  you in other posts, but you haven't bothered to consider it.
This is not a theoretical exercise:  electron synchrotrons are in use all over the world (including Australia).  In the simplest form, the electron beam is bent at stationary magnets into a polygonal path, close to a circle.  Bending a beam therein is an acceleration:  change in velocity over time.  At those stations, where the electrons are accelerated centripetally, EM radiation is produced.  This is all in vacuum.  To improve the output, there are interesting variations done to increase the distance over which the electrons suffer acceleration.  This, along with other forms of electron accelerators, is a practical method for producing EM radiation.
To learn about this important topic, you can go to the website of the main Australian synchrotron, which describes this in detail.  https://www.ansto.gov.au/facilities/australian-synchrotron E

[PITCH 4] I don’t understand Pitch 4. I have agreed i think with everything that u have said about synchrotrons. There is no Pitch 4. Praps u dropped the ball – i think that that might count as a Ball not a Strike.

[aetherist]

A static charge, such as an electrostatic charge on a stationary insulating ball in elementary electrostatics (from the era of Benjamin Franklin), induces a static, non-oscillating, non-propagating electric field in the surrounding vacuum.
This is not radiation, which oscillates and propagates.

Static (electrostatic) charge (on a ball) is interesting, & complicated (compared to electricity).
I agree that static charge on a static ball induces a static electric field.
But u say that a static field is not radiation, or at least that it duznt propagate. I reckon that it is radiation (static radiation), & i reckon that it radiates & propagates outwards from the charge at the speed of (static)(& non static) em radiation (which is they say equal to the speed of light c).

U infer that radiation has to be an oscillation as well as a propagation. I sort of agree that it has to be a propagation – but i don’t agree that it has to be an oscillation (or excitation or vibration or reverberation or something)(or a bulk change in the bulk quantity or quality of the field).
But of course a static field of some kind (eg electric) will of course be a different animal to a non-static field. But they are both radiation (or for different kinds of non-static, there might be hundreds of different kinds, all of them are radiations).

[T3sl4co1l]

Yeesh, don't feed the nutters please

[jasonRF]

I don't think the concept of photons is helping anyone here better understand how an antenna actually works.  Does the OP have a solid understanding of radiation as explained by classical electrodynamics?   That is the place to start. There is a reason why physicists typically first learn classical electrodynamics at both the undergraduate and graduate level before learning QED (where they learn about field quantization).   And there is a reason why EEs almost never learn QED, even in graduate school when we often do lots of esoteric stuff (although I did know EEs that took graduate-level quantum mechanics classes, which were prerequisites for QED).   In any case that is even remotely practical, adding corrections/concepts from QED (photons) to a description of radiation from an antenna is probably just as useful as adding quantum corrections/concepts to a description of how a football moves after being kicked. 

And I agree with T3sl4co1l (although apparently not enough to refrain from posting!).  The crackpottery index is high on this thread...

jason

[aetherist]

Keep in mind that QED describes what happens, not how it happens. There's nothing in the theory, or any other theory, that describes how an electron converts excess energy into a photon, just that it does.

There is one theory – my elekton theory – that describes how an elektron electon makes a photon.
Elektons are photons that hug a nucleus & hence orbit the nucleus.
There is no such  thing as an electron (eg a hard little nut) orbiting a nucleus (like the Moon orbiting Earth).
Hence an atom absorbs a photon when the photon becomes an elektron, ie when the photon is captured by the atom.
And an atom emits a photon when an elektron breaks free of a nucleus. This is the valence energy orbital stuff.
In essence -- an elektron (a semi confined photon) becomes a (free) photon when it breaks away from the nucleus (& vice versa). No smoke & mirrors needed.

So, lets look at the OP…….. "We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valence  just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?" ......

I answered this yesterday – i said that a radio signal is not made of photons.
An electron or elektron hopping along in or on an antenna from atom to atom would i suppose emit a changing em radiation field, a kind of mini radio signal, but all of thems mini signals would tend to cancel, tending to give zero radio signal.
If the hopping was a forced kind of hopping, eg giving a sinusoidal wave of hopping, then i suppose that the nett radio signal would not be zero – but that signal would be an em radiation, not photons.

A number of posters here have said that there is no real difference between  a photon & an em energy packet – but i don’t agree – em radiation is emitted by photons – em radiation is a part of every photon, but a photon is not a part of every em radiation packet.
Actually i can put it another way – a photon is an energy packet, but there is no such thing as an em radiation packet.
[edit][i just realised 2feb2023][if em radiation duznt kum in quantum packets then QED can not help with the math]

[SiliconWizard]

Since time doesn't exist, neither does acceleration. So accelerated particles are just for the birds.

I agree with Einstein that time is an illusion (albeit his illusion is different to mine).

I don't think you have understood what Einstein meant by that.
His main point was about time being relative, not about time not existing. Which was obviously his main topic at the time, and while relativity sounds familiar these days, it certainly didn't when he came up with that.

And, as relative as we have understood "time" to be, we still haven't proven that it could ever go backwards.

QM may elicit some pretty mind-blowing concepts of its own about time too, but as you admitted, you don't understand QM. And to be honest, anyone claiming they do is probably lying anyway.

Time duznt exist.  What exists is ticking. Everything that we see & feel in our world/universe is a process, & all processes have a (natural) ticking.

Time is just a way of expressing changes. Without a concept of time, there is no change. All events would have happened simultaneously, in which case there would be no event to speak of.
And as I said, no time, no acceleration. Pretty much nothing, in fact.

As with most of your other concepts, that are actually not original as they can be read here and there in dodgy books and papers, this is just trying to come up with words that would allegedly be a revolution but are just words.

A "tick" is just the manifestation of time. Use words as you like though, if that makes you feel better. Since time doesn't exist in your head, I just wrote that before you ever posted and I'm not even replying to you.

[aetherist]

Yeesh, don't feed the nutters please

The nutters are the QEDnuts.
Some QEDnuts did admit that QED duznt explain how -- & the OP was about how.
#24 by Vrile was goodish.  He/she said that when an electron changes direction it emits em radiation (but did not say that em radiation was photon).
#32  RoGeorge said much the same -- dancing electrons produce a ripple of em radiation, & these can be called photons.
#36 T35l4co1l is interesting...........
........... "BTW, note that the antenna is only a guide for the EM field.  The EM field extends from within the cable (or waveguide, or whatever), through the radiating structure, out into space.  If you wish to use photons in your reasoning, then they can be present in all these locations. Ultimate photon interactions (creation and absorption) -- not just scattering, occurs at sources and sinks.  Really, anything with resistance, or equivalent resistance. Tim"........

My elektons are photons. So, ït looks to me that u might be agreeing with me (ie my elekton elekticity theory) when u say "then they can be present in all these locations.

[aetherist]

Since time doesn't exist, neither does acceleration. So accelerated particles are just for the birds.

I agree with Einstein that time is an illusion (albeit his illusion is different to mine).

I don't think you have understood what Einstein meant by that.
His main point was about time being relative, not about time not existing. Which was obviously his main topic at the time, and while relativity sounds familiar these days, it certainly didn't when he came up with that.
And, as relative as we have understood "time" to be, we still haven't proven that it could ever go backwards.
QM may elicit some pretty mind-blowing concepts of its own about time too, but as you admitted, you don't understand QM. And to be honest, anyone claiming they do is probably lying anyway.

Time duznt exist.  What exists is ticking. Everything that we see & feel in our world/universe is a process, & all processes have a (natural) ticking.

Time is just a way of expressing changes. Without a concept of time, there is no change. All events would have happened simultaneously, in which case there would be no event to speak of.
And as I said, no time, no acceleration. Pretty much nothing, in fact.

As with most of your other concepts, that are actually not original as they can be read here and there in dodgy books and papers, this is just trying to come up with words that would allegedly be a revolution but are just words.

A "tick" is just the manifestation of time. Use words as you like though, if that makes you feel better. Since time doesn't exist in your head, I just wrote that before you ever posted and I'm not even replying to you.

U have it the wrong way around – u say a tick is just the manifestation of time – but i reckon that time is just the manifestation of ticking.
U say that time doesn’t exist in my head – NO – time exists only in our heads.
What we do have is the present instant -- & this present instant is universal, in our infinite eternal universe – the present instant is the only real time that exists.

My elekton theory of elekticity is certainly original.
My elektron theory of elektrons orbiting an atomic nucleus is certainly original.
My theory that radio signals are not photons is almost certainly original.

[RJSV]

Aerethism, (or whatever, time waster):
   Are you the person, 14 months ago, claiming to be accomplished SAILBOAT operator ?

[aetherist]

Aerethism, (or whatever, time waster):
   Are you the person, 14 months ago, claiming to be accomplished SAILBOAT operator ?

No i joined Jan 2022.
I dont know anything about sailboats -- but that is a great idea -- i will join a sailboat forum & tell them what is what.

[RJSV]

   Yeah, so a quick Google 'Electon' is a made up word by one person,...operating what entity, or University ?
How long pushing this slang-sounding 'electon' ?
If it's 'new' concept, any published journal articles, or elsewhere ?
Ok if you not a physicist, maybe self-taught, but...
Just that you sound like a snappy, VERY DEFENSIVE and quick to respond, when, uh, questions arise.
Note: Try waiting 5 minutes, you won't look as poised to pounce, if someone puts a doubt, or uses phrase:
   TROLL.

   Any colleagues doing the 'electon' research?
Google thinks refers to a 'Texas Election Day', ballots.

[aetherist]

   Yeah, so a quick Google 'Electon' is a made up word by one person,...operating what entity, or University ?
How long pushing this slang-sounding 'electon' ?
If it's 'new' concept, any published journal articles, or elsewhere ?
Ok if you not a physicist, maybe self-taught, but...
Just that you sound like a snappy, VERY DEFENSIVE and quick to respond, when, uh, questions arise.
Note: Try waiting 5 minutes, you won't look as poised to pounce, if someone puts a doubt, or uses phrase:
   TROLL.
   Any colleagues doing the 'electon' research?
Google thinks refers to a 'Texas Election Day', ballots.

Last i looked -- ELECTON is bad news to google -- u get pages of papers etc where someone has misspelled ELECTRON (ie dropped the R)(about 1 error per paper it seems).
I would change the name to something else -- but ELECTON is a wonderful name
[EDIT][I NOW CALL IT AN ELEKTON NOT AN ELECTON][& I CALL IT ELEKTICITY].

Basically we have 5 forms of photon.
Free Photon -- light -- a photon that is confined in 1 dimension (photons go straight ahead, ie kind of confined in 1 dimension).
SemiConfined Photon -- elekton -- a photon that is confined in 2 dimensions (a photon that is hugging a wire, or hugging a nucleus)(propagating straight ahead on an area).
Confined Photon -- elektron -- an elekton that is confined in 3 dimensions (a photon hugging a nucleus)(ie orbiting a nucleus).
Confined Photon -- electron (or proton etc) -- a photon that is confined in 3 dimensions (a photon that has formed a loop by biting its own tail)(however this free electron is not confined at all -- it can sidle or crab or drift anywhere it likes).
Paired Photon -- neutrino -- 2 photons that are locked together, sharing a common axis, but 180 deg out of phase -- confined in 1 dimension (plus locked phase-wise with a mate).

I am a retired Civil Engineer.

[SiliconWizard]

Where's the hugging photon?

[aetherist]

Where's the hugging photon?

Elekticity is the elekton, the hugging photon -- confined in 2 dimensions, ie free to roam (straight ahead at all times) on a surface (eg on a Cu wire).
When the elekton is hugging a nucleus it is still confined in 2 dimensions, ie the surface of a sphere (alltho actually it will be in some kind of fuzzy orbit) -- & here i call it an ELEKTRON.

An elekton duz a U-turn at the end of a wire -- ie it goes straight ahead -- but the surface does a U-turn (u know what i mean).

[RJSV]

Ok, we get it. You poised to spew yet more nonsense blablab blablab blabla...but it's always the techno jargon twisted, (so that, apparently, you'd get a haha NOBEL PRIZE, claim).
  But I've already asked:
   Is there ANY, ANY, organization, or potential business entity, or, ANY entity with the slightest co-involvement ?
Where you going with this, planning a business ?
Physics lab start-up ?  Do you have a working staff, there ? Anything...besides that smarmy word salad gone bad?

[RJSV]

Predictable.
Wait for somebody (else) to ask why not look up accelerating charge (will radiate), but then you can kick-in the WORD SALAD.
   But you've managed to duck the question, (see my prev post):
   WHAT organized use, or publication, entity, or business are you contemplating?  Because, apparent 'Nobel Prize' self-declarations lead one to assume that you aren't a has-been / never willbe.
Comeon man, I taking the effort, in the face of your word-salading this, the effort to ask.
Or is it just passive jerk-TROLLING.
COME ON MAN.

[AVGresponding]

The fact that they describe the nucleus of an atom as "spherical" indicates that they are firmly in the ancient Greek level of understanding of matter. An open admission of not understanding quantum theory is superfluous; it explains everything they are trying to.

QED (in the ancient Latin sense)